A Challenge to the Occupy “Movement”
If you follow me on Twitter, you’ll likely have seen me write a few notes that are generally disapproving of the Occupy “movement.” Those notes are invariably interpreted by my progressive friends as signs that I have slipped into the shadowy world of conservativism. Of course, my conservative friends see these same messages, and welcome me as an enlightened individual who has finally seen the light of reason.
The truth is bound to disappoint both groups. At the risk of alienation from my politically outspoken friends, I would like to set the record straight.
I see people who feel they have been shit on by a system that does not represent or value their interests. I see people who were squarely screwed over by gamblers who knowingly gamed the market to failure. I see people who are proud of a lifetime of work, and are angered by a government that props up the companies that are taking away their homes, their jobs, and their savings. I see people who have literally fought for the ideals of freedom on behalf of their country, only to be shot with rubber bullets when they raise their voices in their own cities.
These are legitimate concerns. There have been inarguable abuses of power. People have clearly been wronged. It is the duty of a just government to address and redress legitimate grievances, just it is the duty of civically minded people to stand up on the behalf of those who cannot.
That said, when I see “the 99%” take to the streets with slogans and signs and tents, I can’t help but think that there’s something missing. There’s something fundamentally flawed with the Occupy “movement.” It doesn’t feel right.
I grew up as an ardent advocate of social justice, and to this day I fiercely believe in the core tenets of equality, empowerment, and activism. I helped organize protests against the Aryan Nation during their annual parades in Coeur d’Alene. I volunteered with LGBT organizations up and down the West Coast. I helped friends get off the streets and into shelters and treatment. I’ve helped build houses and brought meals to people who would otherwise go hungry.
These experiences taught me a clear lesson, that there are two fundamental ingredients required to change the world: focus, and disruption.
The Occupy “movement” has neither.
Every successful popular movement in history has had a rallying cry — a vision for how things should be. The most obvious examples are our independence from the British Empire, the abolishment of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and the labor movement. These were all inspired by a multitude of injustices, but found their power in a central message, a idea with laser-like focus that clearly expressed how the world should be.
Similarly, all of these movements were propelled by people who had the guts to disrupt the specific establishments that held them back. The pursuit of justice was difficult, dangerous, and clearly connected to the vision. The path to independence as a nation? War and expulsion of the occupying force. Abolishment of slavery? Smuggling people northward, and the destruction of the slave states. Suffrage? Civil rights? Labor? Direct action and boycotting on specific principals, against specific organizations, towards a specific goal.
If you want people with power to change something, you either need to become a person in power, or issue an ultimatum backed by a credible threat to their power.
If you’re pissed about corporate influence in government, stop buying from corrupting companies, vote out corrupted politicians, expose the corruption, or run for office.
If you’re pissed about globalism, stop buying stuff made overseas, and take your protest to the specific companies that ship jobs away.
If you’re pissed about banking practices, take your money to a different bank.
If you’re pissed about a law, break it and fight it, or contribute to the defense of someone else.
If you’re pissed about homelessness, build some houses or donate to a shelter.
If you’re pissed about public parks, pitch a tent in one and squat for a month.
That’s what I see in the Occupy “movement” — a bunch of people who are pissed, but don’t know what to do with it. It’s easy to wave signs, it’s easy to protest something you dislike, and it’s easy to sit around and talk about consensus driven activism. I’ve been there. I know.
Tell me what your vision is. Tell me how Occupying is actively moving our country towards a brighter future. Tell me how your “protests” are making a difference, not just making noise. I believe in the fight against corruption, greed, and poverty … show me how camping in a park and waving signs is making the world a better place, and helping people live better lives.
Otherwise, consider doing something that actually makes a difference: donate your time to soup kitchens and shelters. It’s getting cold out there, and there are families that desperately need food and a safe place to sleep.
I bet 99% of you won’t do a damn thing, and I’ll put money on it: up to $500 in matching donations to Outside In, a shelter for homeless kids here in Portland. Show me your donation, no matter how small, and I’ll match it.
Update: It’s been about 12 hours, and we’ve raised $640 (including matching donations) for Outside In. Thank you. Coincidentally, Occupy Portland also announced plans for Bank Transfer Day. Money talks. Lets see who walks.
Update: Almost at $1000 for Outside In, including matching. Thank you!
Update: We passed the $1000 for Outside In, thanks to everyone!
By Justin Myers (The programmer)
Hi Peat,
I hear you! Occupy seems to lack pragmatism. It was so amorphous and weird that, a few weeks ago, I was openly derisive. Then I engaged to figure out just what Occupy is. It’s been an adventure!
I’ve been facilitating a group of Occupy supporters once a week. Our group memebers include organized labor leaders, social workers, folks from the camp, non-profit directors, and professors of American History, PoliSci, and the Sociology of Social Movements etc. People who are opposed to the aesthetics of the camp and are having the kinds of conversations that are going to generate the insights necessary for taking Occupy into the future.
I mention this because I want to demonstrate that a) the work of Occupy is happening in many contexts and b) that Occupy is young and evolving fast. It’s an honor to be a part of these discussions.
I have come to the conclusion that Occupy isn’t about Wall Street. Occupy is about the People reclaiming the public spaces. Occupy is about showing up in spaces that belong to us, where our needs should be but haven’t been heard lately. Some of those places are parks. Some of those places are corporate boardrooms. Some of those places are the halls of Congress, the streets, city halls, banks. It’s a resurgence of democracy, and and awareness that so much of what belongs to benefit all of us has been used to benefit the few, from corporate profits, to housing units, pensions, jobs, the market, and our government.
When I find myself in a room with 20 random, brilliant, passionate people for the SOLE PURPOSE of discussing our society, educating each other about its ills, and discovering possible solutions together I think “This is Occupy. Occupy has already succeeded if it’s causing us to have these conversations.”
By Peat
Thanks for your perspective, Justin. I certainly appreciate the discussion, but I’m baffled why this enlightened discourse requires camping in public parks and disrupting local services. Especially here in Portland.
A lot of would-be supporters think Occupy is a group of whiners who want other people to do the dirty work for them: the public airing of angst may be cathartic for those involved, but for everyone else, it just looks like political masturbation.
Regardless — I’m eager to see what the results of your discussions are. You’re an extraordinarily bright guy, and I hate to think that you’re wasting your time.
By Justin Myers (The programmer)
I agree. Civil disobedience and obstruction is tool to bring attention to your grievances. But we have visibility, we have attention. As a tool it’s only useful if the targets of your obstruction are logical. You don’t illustrate the injustices of greedy corporations by punching old ladies in the face. It’s tough because for many people “standing around and shouting a lot” is the only hammer in their dissenters toolbox, but not every problem here is a nail.
I feel that camping is intrinsic to occupying other public spaces (government, corporations which exist for public good) as well. It doesn’t have to look like Portland’s camp, though. Our camp is trashy. Literally. It is actually built out of garbage held together with duct tape. The community needs to take charge of it, go down there and build charming inviting spaces.
I built a chess area down there which has become rather successful as far as being a unique and relatively urbane area of the camp (it’s even on the WW map this week!). I’d love to do more down there, but I need help. We need folks like us to claim it for our own. We could clear out some space and create some aesthetic diversity down there.
By Klint Finley
Since you’re matching, I just donated $25 – I put your name in the matching field, but I’m not sure how to prove this to you.
However, on the subject at hand, you’re confusing treating the symptom (by providing beds for homeless people) with treating the structural causes that lead to homelessness. And that’s what Occupy is about – the structural problems that allow financial institutions to record profits while the poverty rate for everyone else continues to rise.
So I have no problem donating some money to groups like Outside In, p:ear and the Oregon Food Bank. But I would prefer for people to not end up homeless or
The other problem with your challenge, apart from the fact that 99% of the OccupyPDX movement will probably never even read the challenge in the first place, is that I’m one of the lucky people who has a job. I’m doing well enough that I can afford to donate money to charity. A lot of the people involved in Occupy are involved specifically because they’re out of work. Many are students or recent graduates in massive debt. Those with more time than money could volunteer at a homeless shelter or for Habitat for Humanity, which I’m all for, but it’s still only treating a symptom. BTW, the Occupier are preparing and serving free meals, Food Not Bombs style so it’s not like they’re not doing anything material.
It’s true that the Occupier don’t really know what else to do about the things they’re pissed about – I don’t know either. The SEC has given the banks that profited from the current financial situation mere slaps on the wrist (http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/why-the-sec-wont-hunt-big-dogs) – I don’t see what donating to a homeless shelter is going to do about that.
By Peat
Hi Klint! I’ll take your word for it, and I’ll match the $25.
You’re right — donating to a shelter doesn’t solve the structural or social problems that make shelters a necessity. Never the less, giving money to a shelter (or serving meals) is significantly more helpful than sitting in protest against a dozen different causes.
It’s the lack of focus that renders Occupy so ineffective. For example — students who are upset by their debt load should take their concerns to the administration of their schools, who directly control budget and tuition. What would happen if 1000 PSU students occupied Neuberger Hall? That’s a far more interesting proposition than Chapman park: it brings the issue to the people who have the power to make real changes.
That’s just one example. It’s specific, direct, and could actually precipitate real change. Yes, the students put themselves at the risk of expulsion and even arrest … but like I said in my post, these sorts of things are difficult and dangerous.
I really appreciate the tone of these comments, by the way. Thank you for speaking up, and thank you for donating.
By Chris Koskey
The undercurrent of Occupy is to get people talking about issues. To this end the movement is a tremendous success. All news outlets big and small are covering the story. When you get George F. Will to write about it you know a chord has been struck. Sure the message is fractured but I see it as a first step to getting America to think beyond their couch.
By Stanger
Could not the Occupy movement’s agenda be tied to the wealth gap and its continual growth. Isn’t that the specific thing that the whole 99% label is referring to?
This article: https://plus.google.com/url?sa=z&n=1320358574533&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fmg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html&usg=Z9g7EshLGaJUkgr5Iwq8N7iz3WI. seems to imply that a fairly de-regulated market where all assets are up for sale if you have the capital will naturally lead to the concentration of wealth and hence power in the hands of a very small number. If this is the case then the whole structure of how we treat capital and wealth distribution is what the “movement” is all about.
Where you go to protest the prevailing economic system I’m not sure. Its probably not camping in parks but then again its probably camping in pretty much everywhere and parks are nicer to camp in than the streets. Plus you don’t get in the way so much but are still visible. I like the sentiment but I have an entirely different plan to change things.
By Justin Myers (The programmer)
I want to challenge your “Never the less, giving money to a shelter (or serving meals) is significantly more helpful than sitting in protest against a dozen different causes.”
I’d argue that no amount of issue-specific charitable donations in the last twenty years has in any way abated the slow accretion of power to the hands of the 1% and the increasing exposure of the public to private banking losses.
And, actually, when I was in student government at PSU I was the first one to publish about the elimination of the tuition plateau and we DID have 1000 students (ish) have a sit in (it was in Cramer Hall) to protest the StudentOne visa cards they issued us to us to spend our loans with that actually came with brochures about all the great deals local businesses would offer us on, for example, spa services, when we used our student loan money to pay for them. That didn’t change anything.
By Peat
Justin: Occupy isn’t threatening Wall Street institutions, and camping in a public park won’t change anything in that regard. Even the City of Portland, the most amicable government body I’ve seen during the Occupation, doesn’t have much to offer when it comes to real changes. Regardless — donating time or money to a charity isn’t going to change the scene on Wall Street, but it changes people’s lives here in Portland, and not in insignificant ways.
Regarding the PSU cards — yes, I remember those protests. A lot of people do, because you were very successful at communicating a clear message. I’m curious, though … what ended the protest? Why do you think it failed?
By Valarie
Thanks so much for writing this, Peat. While I’m sympathetic towards many of Occupy’s frustrations, I also don’t agree with its tactics. To me, the problem here is not the businesses, but the people themselves and the choices they make. If they want a product, but it’s manufactured in a way they disapprove of, then they need to not buy it and let the company know why. Businesses will go where the money is; if their profits drop, and they know why, they will try to fix the problem so that they can keep making money.
Sadly, I don’t think this is just a matter of consumer education – it’s a matter of people being complacent and comfortable. Apple is a great example. Apple was not a philanthropic company. Their Chinese factory issues were well known. Steve Jobs could’ve used his money for good, like Bill Gates is now doing. But he didn’t. Yet how many OWS protesters tweeted things like “RIP Steve Jobs”? (I don’t point this out as a way to call OWS hypocritical (I’m just as guilty as anyone else); I point it out to show how complicated all of this is.)
If we change our personal values, the market will change with us – it has to, just to survive. If we want to change the world, the answer is in the mirror – not Wall Street or any other financial institution.
The reason I’m hesitant to give too much vent to anti-Occupy sentiment, though, is because of what some of the commenters above have said: it’s gotten some people talking about these issues. There’s value in that. But it also makes me see how much of an opportunity the movement is missing by rigidly adhering to this idea that there shouldn’t be a clear message or a list of demands. When casual observers walk by and see signs that say things like, “Economic justice for all”, “Green jobs now” and “End Israeli apartheid”, what are they to think? Without a clear, consistent message, it’s no wonder people complain about the sight snd smell of the camp instead.
There’s a further danger as well. If there’s no clear message, and there are no leaders, than anyone can coopt what Occupy stands for. For example, about a block north of Occupy Portland are posters that say something like “Money = Traitors” with the image of a guillotine on it. Obviously, that’s extreme, and I don’t expect a sentiment like that to gain a real footing in the movement, but with no other clear message from Occupy to balance it, what is the casual passerby to take away from all this?
By dtwood
Peat,
Thanks for vocalizing something that has rubbed me too. A protest that was born out of frustration of inequality , now has no visible end-game, no ultimatum, and no direct goal. Each day another cause is lumped on top of the others, splintering focus and diluting support. There is little value in becoming the Tea Party for the left; nevertheless politicians are already postuering to represent the newly dispossessed. I hope that some organizing can occur quickly before this camping spectacle turns into the next Critical Mass bicycle traffic jam… Overtly designed to piss off and disrupt all the while covertly hoping to convert mindshare of the disrupted ( 1%).
Disrupt profits if you want to be heard. Disrupt re-election plans if you are unsatisfied with leadership. A sit-in without demands is a journey with no destination… and a growing number of detours with each new day.
By Katrina
I just wanted to say that I love Justin Myer’s comment that “the work of Occupy is happening in many contexts”. We’ve been heavily in engaged in the local economies movement for about five years. In Spring ’09 my husband resigned as a tenured professor so we could dedicate our lives to the movement and build Supportland.
The way I see it, there needs to be the folks fighting (nonviolently) and nerd folk working on solutions. Sometimes it’s the same people, but the nerds might best serve the movement getting a full nights sleep and having access to a warm workspace with internet and all that. We just need to make sure that all the folks working on solutions talk and collaborate so there’s little redundancy of energy and we are all crazy ass effective.
That said, you are all invited to our party this Saturday – “All-Stars of the New Economy”. Details by hitting this link and just drop me a line (katrina@supportland.com) if you don’t have points for the ticket price: http://supportland.com/rsvp/ If you can’t make it, but want to mind meld on local love, than drop me a line as well.
Thanks!
By Justin Myers (The programmer)
Regarding the PSU cards what happened was we “occupied” the hallways until the administration met with the student body president and vice president, which they did. The administration told them in that meeting that there was nothing that could be done, so, sorry, thanks for stopping by.
The pres. and vp came out of the meeting, put the administration’s rationale into their own words, and told everyone to go home, there was nothing more we could do. /shrug
I was upset but really, unless PSU students were willing en masse to boycott financial aid and the university itself there wasn’t much we could do to pressure the university. I suppose a massive voter-powered lobbying campaign aimed at state legislators could have changed things but college students don’t make a very good base for that sort of thing since they’re any combination of itinerant, busy, and broke.
P.S. <3 Supportland!
By Peat
Katrina: That’s fantastic. Supportland is a great project, with a clear mission and service for local businesses and people who want to support them. I’m a big fan of projects that encourage people to make good choices about how they spend their money. I’d love to learn more, and I’m a little bummed I already have plans for Saturday evening. Maybe we could get lunch sometime? I’ll ping you directly over e-mail.
By Klint Finley
Thanks for matching the donation Peat!
As to focus, there’s been much written on whether it’s a good thing that Occupy doesn’t have, say, official leadership or a list of demands, so I’ll avoid getting into that.
However, something that was brought up in a recent interview I conducted is that one particular outcome of occupying public spaces long-term is that Occupy has gotten the mainstream media carrying the water, so to speak, for the movement in a way that hasn’t really happened since the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements in the 60s.
It’s also worth noting that more specific, focused actions have emerged from the meetings – for example @banktransferday, which encourages people to pull their money out of big banks and put it into local credit unions, as well as Kickstopper (a campaign to instigate a “debt strike”). http://groups.google.com/group/debt-strike-kick-stopper
By Jason Grigsby
Hi Peat,
I’ve had this post set aside in my RSS reader for days wondering if I would ever get a chance to reply. The eviction tonight reminded me that I wanted to chime in.
You write:
“These experiences taught me a clear lesson, that there are two fundamental ingredients required to change the world: focus, and disruption.”
Defining what qualifies as changing the world makes it difficult to assess the validity of your assertion.
Let’s say that having an impact on national elections—especially elections in a country with as much influence on the world as the United States—qualifies as changing the world. If that is the measure, then recent history proves your assertion wrong.
How easy it is to forget the incoherence of the tea party protests. Just take a look at these signs from 2009:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-45-dumbest-signs-at-the-912-teabagger-rally
It started out as protests against the stimulus bill. Then maybe health care. Hard to say. Lots of hatred of Obama.
Regardless of the message, the tea party moved the dial. It was the story of the 2010 elections. We now have a Tea Party caucus which many Tea Party activists think of as the GOP trying to co-opt their movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
Looking back on the beginnings of the Tea Party, who would have guessed that their influence on GOP policies would help bring the U.S. government to the end of default.
Think about that. A movement started in 2009 comes close to pushing our government into a constitutional crisis less a little over two years later.
You also write:
”Tell me what your vision is. Tell me how Occupying is actively moving our country towards a brighter future. Tell me how your “protests” are making a difference, not just making noise. I believe in the fight against corruption, greed, and poverty … show me how camping in a park and waving signs is making the world a better place, and helping people live better lives.”
You may not be getting the message, but America certainly is. CBS/NYT poll found that 43% of Amercians agree with the views of the movement:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20125515-503544/poll-43-percent-agree-with-views-of-occupy-wall-street/
The same poll shows the public taking issue with income inequality for the first time in years. This is rather remarkable because the belief in meritocracy in the United States is so strong that discussion of income inequality has traditionally been taboo.
The fact that it is taboo is a shame. Many of the academic research studies in Political Science and Sociology show a correlation between inequality and crime, education, etc. It also seems clear that the country tends to have better economic growth with a small gap between the rich and the poor.
Whether or not these factors are sufficient to warrant changes in tax policy is something that can be debated. The shame in my mind is the fact that the entire subject has been off the table.
That’s why Robert Reich is right when he gives the Occupy movement credit for the fact that mainstream news covered a recent Congressional Budget Office report on income inequality and put it on the front page. I encourage you to read Robert Reich’s entire post to get a sense of the impact that the Occupy movement is having:
http://robertreich.org/post/12168464049
Let’s look at this in more practical terms. Forty-three percent of Americans say they share views with the Occupy movement. Thirty percent say they don’t know. Obama won the Presidency with 53% of the vote. Look at the party breakdown on the question about wealth distribution on the CBS poll. Independents strongly agree as well as do 36% of Republicans.
To think that we’re not going to see this impact politics in this country is crazy. There will be more Elizabeth Warren’s who strike a populist message and try to channel this energy into electoral victories and presumably public policy.
I mean, even GOP House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, couldn’t resist flirting with the Occupy message when he said ”that Republicans agree that too few people control too much wealth in America.”
http://thehill.com/video/house/187799-cantor-too-much-income-disparity-in-this-country
Finally, you write:
“Otherwise, consider doing something that actually makes a difference: donate your time to soup kitchens and shelters. It’s getting cold out there, and there are families that desperately need food and a safe place to sleep.”
All of these things should be done, but they will impact far fewer people than Occupy movement will. You say the movement doesn’t have a coherent message or action plan, but the data doesn’t support that view.
-Jason
By Aaron J. Grier
I am interested in the next chapter of occupy. the occupation got attention, and national conversation has been affected. time to move on to the next phase.
the tea party is an example of how a loose movement can affect the larger political discussion; the republican party has definitely been influenced. hopefully occupy can translate into actual political action.
currently the actions of demonstrators are affecting their fellow 99% more than the 1%.
By amanda
wonderful to hear an opinion such as this, and see positive change in action, in donation to outside in. very cool!!